Well, I think in the first place, it will mean that the government will be able to deliver on the mandate that it’s received. If you look at the legislation that’s been held up in the Senate in the past, most of that legislation is legislation for which the government has received a mandate, not once, but now at four successive elections, most notably the industrial relations legislation. Now, I’ve lost count, honestly, of the number of times on which that package of bills has been knocked back. Last time I counted, I think it was about 17 times. That has been a manifesto commitment of the government at each one of the last four federal elections, but our Labor opponents, under the Whip from the trade unions, have knocked it back. We’ll be able to pass it and so give effect to the people’s expressed wishes at the election. Can I broaden that point to make a different point? Just because the government has a majority in the Senate, where does the notion come from that that’s un-democratic? I remember in years gone by when Mr Keating and Mr Hawke and before that Mr Whitlam were the Prime Minister, the Labor Party would say, “Well, how undemocratic can this be, that the Senate is holding up legislation which we the Labor Government committed to at elections?” When the boot’s on the other foot, somehow the argument changes.

Mr Gailey said despite the concerns during the election campaign about the power of union leaders, he was not worried about the government dominated by newly-elected union identities such as Bill Shorten and Greg Combet.

“We’ve worked successfully with Labor governments in the past and I don’t see any issues in terms of the people who will be part and parcel of of that government and that we won’t be able to work with them,” he said.

Of course, Joe Hockey can keep telling us that this is a sign that the system is working – unfair AWAs are being picked up and rectified. He might even manage to keep a straight face while doing it. But these findings highlight that a lot of employers either (i) don’t understand the requirements or (ii) are trying to circumvent them to the detriment of their employees’ working conditions. And it means that a lot of effort is being wasted in negotiating and evaluating AWAs. This is neither a fair nor efficient system, and it is one that needs to be dismantled.

Of course, Team Howard may have managed to seal its own fate by bringing economic management and industrial relations issues front and centre in the past week. If the final fortnight of the election campaign revives the WorkChoices debate and these are the kind of statistics that are coming out, I can’t see the electorate returning to Honest John. Add to these WorkChoices findings and the interest rate rise the latest warnings about businesses being placed in jeopardy by the current economic conditions, and it is difficult to see how Howard and co. will be able to convince the public at large that they have things under control.

Now that the mid-year economic review data has been released, Labor has an up-to-date price tag of the taxpayer-funded propaganda campaigns. Julia Gillard has jumped on the WorkChoices advertising figures ($121 million in total; $66 million since the fairness test):

“$4 million a week each week of this financial year to try and convince Australians who know WorkChoices is bad that it’s good for them,” she said.

“Well they’re not going to be convinced and they’ll be thinking to themselves, what difference could that money have made to my local hospital or my local school?”

Naturally, Big Gun Joe has trotted out the standard talking points in response:

“Kevin Rudd and the union bosses who control over 70 per cent of his frontbench have spent millions of dollars on a massive scare campaign designed to confuse and misinform working families,” he said.

“Therefore we make no apologies for properly informing working Australians about the protections that exist under the workplace relations system.”

I thought Kevin Rudd only spent millions of dollars on beach-houses? Joe not only fails to distinguish between unions funding advertising as opposed to Labor funding it, but he also fails to recognise that he has been spending taxpayers’ money to achieve his political ends. Furthermore, it was that “scare campaign” that prompted the Government to introduce the fairness test – because the facts of the original system were so scary that they had to try to make it seem more palatable. Why, the Big Gun himself admitted that the original system was wrong. So, even if we accept for the moment that the fairness test has fixed things, doesn’t the responsibility for the $66 million of follow-up advertising lie with the Government who got the laws wrong in the first place?

Rudd and Gillard made a start on bringing WorkChoices into the campaign. It’s been overshadowed by the tax cuts, but was a decent start. However, if I may answer one of Kevin Rudd’s questions (perhaps not in the same way JWH would):

“What is to stop Mr Howard in the future from enforcing WorkChoices on nurses, on police, on emergency service personnel such as ambulance workers and fire fighters, what’s to stop Mr Howard from doing it?” he said.